Sugar Giants Threaten WHO

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
something you apparently missed when you "read" the articles...



"We don't take the position that we don't need the IMF and the World Bank, and that IMF policies are diabolical," said Yvon Neptune, a spokesman for former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who has described capitalism as "evil." "We are saying we want to sit down and negotiate with the IMF, and adjust their policies to the reality of Haiti."

Attempts to promote alternative models of development in Haiti in recent years have run aground from political infighting, lack of funds and impracticality. A pilot land reform project in the Artibonite valley has failed to increase rice yields, and in some ways even made matters worse, leading to the breakup of relatively efficient farms and the decay of irrigation systems.

Unable to produce enough rice to satisfy domestic demand, or even feed their own families, the rice growers of the Artibonite are close to despair, and caught in a seemingly unresolvable contradiction.

"The introduction of American rice has hurt us terribly," said Claudes Derilus, a 29-year-old rice farmer in Pont-Sonde. "But if it wasn't for this rice, Haitians would die of hunger."

is there a BBC articles which states Haiti would be a graveyard of people who starved to death if not for the US? how about their own inability to satisfy domestic need?

Yes, now that the domestic rice industry is in decline due to the cheap imports, they are reliant on US rice. I find the point about them "not producing enough rice for domestic demand" interesting as no one is wanting to buy it. I don't see how there is a demand for domestic rice.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
- they did not decide who traded what and at what price

who did? Did haiti just buy trhe cheapest they could find, yes.

of course you blame only the US, while the truth is all around you in this thread.

look at what the people of Haiti think.

Whatever you say - your "truth" and what you "think" are two very different things. I am looking at what the people of Haiti think.

"Rice producers want a better life. We work hard for it. But when we get to market we are bombarded with an invasion of cheap imported rice, so we have to sell at any price that a buyer is prepared to give us. How can we compete against the big guys?" - Inodil Fils, rice farmer, Artobonite Valley, Haiti

What is your position on the fact that this rice is subsidised?

Cheers,

Andy

BTW Here is a quite comprehensive and numerical article on the subject.

 

[Alistar7]

they do not have to but it, they do it out of necessity. They cannot produce enough to feed their people either way, even if they could it would be an inferior product.
If they did not buy it from the US, they would buy it from the next cheapest producer. The only result would be they would pay more and have less money, while the govt smuggled in plenty and undersold their own farmers as happens today.


This crisis was caused by the IMF forcing haiti to open it's trade borders and their willing choice of purchasing US rice. Whether we subsidize it or not, they have every right not to buy any., so why do they/

because they would starve to death.

Your quote you used was from one third world farmer. i could show you htousands of ignorant american factory workwers who will tell you they were laid off because a black man took their job. I trust a former administration official has a little more knowledge and insight into the real cause of their trouble.

EU countires susbsidze their business, we subsidize our businesses that operate there in an effort to compete. like McDonald's.

I also wonder why you give no mention to who is actually making the effort to solve the problem. Does it suprise you the rest of the international community, including your own country, collectively did only as much as the US has alone? Why is it everyone else was willing to turn the money off and it was a US group that led the way for the aid they need?

The state owns transportation in haiti, they could bring domestic products to market for free, US companies have to pay to ship it internationally. Does this cost offset the subisdy?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
they do not have to but it, they do it out of necessity. They cannot produce enough to feed their people either way, even if they could it would be an inferior product.
If they did not buy it from the US, they would buy it from the next cheapest producer. The only result would be they would pay more and have less money, while the govt smuggled in plenty and undersold their own farmers as happens today.

This crisis was caused by the IMF forcing haiti to open it's trade borders and their willing choice of purchasing US rice. Whether we subsidize it or not, they have every right not to buy any., so why do they/

because they would starve to death.[/quote]

From the article I quoted above:

According to the FAO, overall malnourishment has increased since the start of trade liberalisation, affecting 48% in 1979-1981 and 62%in 1996-1998.

The IMF, which was lobbied in part by the US did get Haiti to open up its trade.

Your quote you used was from one third world farmer. i could show you htousands of ignorant american factory workwers who will tell you they were laid off because a black man took their job. I trust a former administration official has a little more knowledge and insight into the real cause of their trouble.

EU countires susbsidze their business, we subsidize our businesses that operate there in an effort to compete. like McDonald's.

I don't see your analogy being equivalent to that quote, but besides that point, the EU too has issues with fair trade. I could also point to the tomato growers of Ghana in that respect (but Haiti was what was bought up originally). The point is we're not competing McDonald's vs Burger King we're talking Joe Bloggs with almost nothing to his name vs huge government machine. The result won't just be a couple more people unemployed but a country unable to feed itself and many going into increased poverty.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

I also wonder why you give no mention to who is actually making the effort to solve the problem. Does it suprise you the rest of the international community, including your own country, collectively did only as much as the US has alone? Why is it everyone else was willing to turn the money off and it was a US group that led the way for the aid they need?

The state owns transportation in haiti, they could bring domestic products to market for free, US companies have to pay to ship it internationally. Does this cost offset the subisdy?

We haven't got to the solution yet as we can't even agree on the problem! No country union is blameless when it comes to "fair" trade, but the US is singled out here since it provides the bulk of the subsidised rice.

I have tried unsuccessfully to find the numbers for the subsidies. When I do I'll let you know. The only clues I've found are ones such as:

1994/95: A general decrease in tariffs was one of the conditions set by the international community (especially the IMF and the US) for the return of Aristide to Haiti. The tariff on rice was cut from 35% to 3%, causing a second wave of cheap imports.

By comparison, the Common External Tariff in the CARICOM zone for rice is 20%.

Cheers,

Andy.

I have to do some work now and will catch up with this later. Cheers.

 

[Alistar7]

In teeming shantytowns, the most basic services do not exist. In the district of Christ-Roi, the body of a middle-aged man lay on a rutted track, face up with a broad gash to the head. People walked past.

Amid such poverty, the need for aid and investment is undisputed, but in its absence millions of Haitians want simply to escape. "We want to do things for the community," said James Joussaint, director of a development association. "But people want to go abroad for economic reasons, for better health, better education, more security, so their children don't have to work ..." His voice trailed off, implying an endless list.

At home, education is seen as one escape route; private primary schools have sprung up all over. Hubert Milhomme, headmaster of Ecole El-Shaddai in Arcachon, looks on as his 18-month-old son, Hubens, plays on the floor and jokes that one day the boy will be a doctor.

But even this pillar of the community is dispirited: "The government pays nothing toward the school. Not even for a piece of chalk. There's rarely any electricity. It gets diverted to the wealthy people in Petionville. Down here we suffer from tuberculosis and malaria." He, too, talks wistfully of a life in the US.

he knows where the good life is

sounds like the UN is doing a bang-up job over there, everything would be perfect if those pesky americans would stop making us buy all that cheap rice we need to feed everyone.

 

[Alistar7]

How did I know that you would assume all BBC articles are worthless because some employees made a complaint.


if the shoe fits...

Of course I am going to look at their articles much more closely, if it's is not there that shouldn't be a problem, yet I continue to find many examples of the nature they described exactly, the one you used today is an excellent example.

How often do journalists complain of bias by their editorial staffs? Not very common here at least.

 

[Alistar7]

1994/95: A general decrease in tariffs was one of the conditions set by the international community (especially the IMF and the US)

especially the US, where did that come from?


Like the US needs haiti to buy their rice.

Ignore the fact they willingly buy our rice, delude yourself into thinking they cannot stop the flow of American rice.

Ignore the fact the country is in a humanitarian crisis while being "handled" by the UN.

Ignore the fact international policy and pressure brought this crisis to bear.

Ignore the fact the US has provided as much aid as the rest of the world combined, and if not for our rice they would starve todeath.

Ignore the fact the rest of the world was ready to turn their backs on Haiti untl American interests intervened on their behalf.

rather blame the US because we provide the food they need at the price they can afford.
Why are US rice farmers subsidized anyway?

Would haiti be the same today if it were not a former Slave colony of ??????

 

[Alistar7]

The History Of Haiti

I know you think events that happened years ago have no bearing today but...


"There arose a class system, still present today..."

 

[Alistar7]

Ok, fine, I will do your work for you too, so you don't have to feel so bad about being a second class world player..

The UK is the only one of the G7 to follow through so far with promises to absolve all of Haiti's debt that is owed to them in an effort to help the people there.

 

[Alistar7]

The rice farmers of Arkansas already get about half of their gross from federal subsidy. They have nearly pumped dry the aquifer that irrigates their crop. Now they, the state government and the Army Corps of Engineers would very much appreciate it if the federal government would cover 65 percent of a $300 million irrigation project to supplement the more than four feet of water nature already delivers annually.

If it?s true that necessity mothers invention, then rice agriculture ought to be full of innovation. It is the world?s most important crop, by itself providing about a quarter of human nutrition. But it is especially important for the world?s poorest people. The poorest of rice farmers and rice consumers live on lands without irrigation, so necessity, diversity, natural selection and 10,000 years of plant breeding have produced rice varieties that grow with very little water. Worldwide, upland and rain-fed rice -- as opposed to irrigated rice -- account for about 45 percent of the total area planted to the crop. The poor are locked into poverty because they are stuck with marginal lands where irrigation is unavailable, and the drier varieties of rice don?t yield as well as the irrigated.

This past year I visited a dryland rice farmer in India whose lifetime income wouldn?t buy his Arkansas counterpart?s pickup truck. Joining me on that visit, though, was a rice scientist, an Indian plant breeder. He was part of a worldwide network of thousands of highly trained molecular biologists, agronomists, plant pathologists and breeders, all working to create strains of dryland rice that are more productive. One of their main targets is growing rice with less rain, and they are succeeding. They are not using genetic engineering, but rather, conventional plant breeding assisted by biotechnology for reading a plant?s genetic code. They are growing more food while conserving resources. Don?t ?conserving? and ?conservatism" have the same origin?

This network of rice science is not an accident but the result of investment. In the mid-1980s, the Rockefeller Foundation committed $100 million over 15 years -- a third the cost of the Arkansas irrigation project -- to training 400 rice scientists, building labs throughout Africa, Asia and Central America, and paying for basic research. Growing high-yield rice varieties with very little water is but one of the payoffs.

the BBC probaly didnt have time to include this either. I'm sure the Haitian farmer you quoted knows more about this stuff than anyone, and he has conclusively determined the US is at fault for his inablilty to grow rice.

 

[Alistar7]

The government has said that it would encourage large-scale farming for the sake of produce quality and achieve globally competitive rice through the subsidy system, but so far the efforts have lost all steam.


other rice subsidizing attempts involving the world market not mentioned by the BBC....

 

[Alistar7]

Economics: How is the price of U.S. export rice determined by the world market price. What determines the world market price for rice?

Government loans to rice farmers, as well as the prices that millers offer when they buy rice from farmers, are based on the world market price for rice. The government calculates the world market price weekly. Values for U.S. rice are placed at a level that will allow it to compete on the world market. If the world market price happens to be below the loan price (the price needed to cover the farmers' cost for growing rice) the government may further subsidize the difference. If the government did not have provisions to deal with this type of situation, farmers would go out of business and the government would be stranded with tons of rice forfeited by farmers. The amount of this difference is called the Loan Deficiency Payment. It works in the following way. Let's say a farmer's loan amount was $5.85. Since the world price is lower than the loan, the
miller cannot offer even the loan amount, much less the premium. So let's say it is sold to the miller at $4.00, but the farmer keeps his $05.85. This way the miller can be competitive on the world market. The price, $4.00 in our case, can be made low enough so that the miller can still offer a premium. If he offers a premium of $1.00. The farmer will end up with $6.85. In conclusion, the farmer's return is based on a yield of rice times
the price....the amount of the loan plus the premium offered by the miller, and if necessary, a subsidy.

After paying for the rough rice, also called "paddy rice", the miller must transport it and mill it into brown rice or the most popular form of rice, white rice. After the milling process, about 55 percent of the original yield is whole rice kernels. The value of the byproducts must also be taken into consideration. The first byproduct removed in the milling process is the rice hulls, which make up about 20 percent of the yield. They can be sold to be burned for fuel, for cattle feed, mulch or livestock bedding. If there are no buyers for the hulls, it will cost the mill to dispose of them. White rice is the rice grain with the hull and bran layers taken off. This bran is about 10 percent of the original yield. This is sold as animal feed,
cereals, baking mixes and other products. Broken kernels make up 15 percent of the original weight purchased. These are sold to the brewing industry for beer, for pet food or for milling into rice flour. After adding all milling expenses and taking into account the price received for by-products, the price of the milled rice becomes about double that of the original rough rice price.

About one half of U.S. rice produced is exported. United States rice is the highest quality rice in the world and commands a premium price. But even this cannot be too far above the price set by the world market. Most of the rice produced in the world is consumed within a few miles of where it is grown. The amount traded is relatively small (about five percent) and demand is constant. Supply is the factor that has the most effect on pricing. Growing conditions and practices in the largest producing countries (India, Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan and China) determine how much rice will be on the market in any one year. A natural disaster (such as too much or too little rain) in one of these countries can greatly reduce the world rice supply and make prices skyrocket. Thailand is the biggest rice exporter and generally is a good indicator of establishing the world market value for rice. The United States, also one of the world's largest rice exporters, tends to sell its rice above this standard rate.


guess we don't have the cheapest rice, yet they still purchase ours. Maybe it's because it is the best in the world. Look at the small amount traded every year, and notice our subsidies are designed to keep the cost of the rice we export comparable to the world market price, which we do not control. Even though we do charge a bit more than the average most seem to pay for the quality as Haiti doesi nstead of buyng the cheapest available. If not for the subsidies, ours would be even higer priced to purchase on the open market, putting more of a burden on countries like Haiti who need to import enough food to feed their people. Maybe they should but the other stuff available that is not as good as US rice, but still cheaper? Then they would sell even less domestic rice, we have already been shown their people but the cheapest they can find, do you blame them when it is a far superior product? That is why capitalism works, as a consumer, you have the right to purchase the best quality to can for your money. You work hard for your money and expect nothing less, why should they? They should be forced to spend more on an inferior product?

 

[Alistar7]

Figure 1 shows the concentration of subsidies across U.S. agricultural products. Crops and livestock products were ranked according to their share of subsidy relative to their share of value in 1999. According to this measure, rice is the most heavily subsidized crop, receiving 5 percent of U.S. subsidies but contributing only 0.7 percent of the value of U.S. agricultural production.

 

[Alistar7]

Like most of California's 2,500 rice farmers, Schwab gets his rice money from two different U.S. Department of Agriculture programs.

The first pays a subsidy based on production: The more rice produced, the greater the payment. The second program makes up the difference between the loan a farmer typically takes out each year to plant a crop and the price received for a crop.

so the US govt pays our rice farmers in able to keep the market price equal( actually slightly higer) than the international market price. If they did not, what would be the effect on the price of rice? It would go up, internationally. So basically americans help pick up part of the tab every time a haitin eats some of our rice, might nice of us wouldn't you say.

I am still wondering why they choose to buy ours though if there are cheaper alternatives?

 

[Alistar7]

A look at India..

He said there was no need to be defensive about providing higher subsidies to the farming community. In fact, the average Indian farmer receives only a fraction of the subsidy that his counterparts in the US, EU or other developed countries receive. The average subsidy per farmer in the European Community and Japan is higher than what it was in 1986-87, which was the `base year' in relation to which member-countries are obliged to reduce farm subsidies as per their commitments under the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture.

what do you know......


I'm sure I missed all of these other trade related issues regarding rice and subsidies in the BBC article. Thankfully they at least provided the necesaary information to make a legitimate informed decision, it is all the fault of the US. Look, we realize there is still much resentment over the bit*h-slapping we gave you back in the day, and your reduced status in the wolrd has made you ever more bitter, but enough already.

Of course with media like that, it's understandable the way you see the world and think the way you do, I will no longer hold you accountable.

 

[Alistar7]

EU ric esubsidy program

The EU however imports a considerable amount of rice under preferential conditions. The EU is the world's sixth largest importer in volume terms (718,000 tonnes) with 2.9% of imports and the fourth largest net importer in value terms, given the high quality of the rice it imports.

As with many other products falling under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) the rice regime was traditionally based on a wholesale intervention price for standard quality paddy rice (rice in the husk after threshing). The intervention price varied according to the quality of the rice. If market prices fell below the intervention price then rice was bought into intervention.

The maintenance of a high intervention price (which served to support the market price) required the maintenance of high levels of fixed import duties and the provision of export refunds to allow the export of surplus rice onto lower-priced world markets. These export refunds are made available on both milled rice and on rice used in manufactured goods.

Preferential trade arrangements are also established for imports of rice from ACP countries. These are set out in Declaration XXII of the Cotonou Agreement (the 'Joint Declaration Concerning Agricultural Products Referred to in Article 1(2) (a) of Annex V'). This establishes two ACP rice quotas:

a quota of 125,000 tonnes for direct husked rice exports to the EU;
a quota of 20,000 tonnes for direct broken rice exports to the EU.
On these quotas a 65% reduction in the duty charged is granted. ACP rice exported under these quotas pays only 35% of the standard import duty minus ?4.35 per tonne for husked rice and minus ?3.62 per tonne for broken rice. The actual rate applied varies on a fortnightly basis depending on the level of the reference price used. The principal ACP rice exporters to territories of the EU are Guyana (about70%) and Suriname, with small volumes of rice from Madagascar also being exported.

In addition provision is made for the import of 35,000 tonnes of rice into the EU via Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), where it undergoes a certain level of processing before being shipped duty-free to the EU market.

Together, all these forms of preferential access account for two-thirds of EU imports.


what happened to the "fair" market?

 

[Alistar7]

The early 1990s saw a rapid expansion of Guyana's rice production and exports. The spectacular growth during the 1991-96 period was fuelled by favourable indirect access to the EU market (via the OCTs) and high export prices. In 1996 Guyana rice exports to the EU, both direct and indirect, totalled over 260,000 tonnes, with 90% going via the OCTs, where it underwent a certain degree of processing prior to shipment duty-free to the EU market (in contrast to the 50% levy charged on direct exports).

This boom period saw considerable investment in new production capacity (a necessary prerequisite for the development of trading capacity) in the Guyanese rice sector, which then ran into severe difficulties in the face of:

the introduction of safeguard measures by the EU against rice exported via the OCT route;
increased competition in regional markets from subsidised US rice exports (mainly in Jamaica);
a consequent decline in rice prices on the major markets served.

In terms of the EU market, the introduction of the safeguard measures caused Guyana's rice exports to the EU to fall dramatically to below half of their peak levels, with exports via the OCTs falling from 90% to 19% of total exports. This situation was compounded by price reductions caused by the rice-sector reform. . With the exception of speciality rices, EU market prices for rice in the last five years have been below the intervention price level. As a consequence, earnings from exports to the EU declined even more dramatically than the volume of rice exported, despite a reduction in the levy charged on direct exports to only one-third of that normally applied.

What happened to Guyana after they lost all that EU business? maybe their unfair trade pratices had an adverse effect?

 

[Alistar7]

Expanding US rice exports are bad news for ACP Caribbean rice producers who are currently looking for new regional markets to replace the EU market, where prices are set to fall by over a third by 2004 (and where production is set to increase despite these price reductions as a result of the shift over to a direct aid payments system of farm support in the rice sector).

USDA projections suggest that there will be a 4% decline in global rice production this year. Predictions for global rice stocks suggest levels 21% below a year earlier and the lowest since 1987/88. A decline in Indian rice production is the major factor in this global decline, with the 2002/03 rice forecast showing the lowest output in India since 1992/93. Continued drought in Venezuela also saw production down by a third, while Mexican production saw an even steeper decline (44%) caused by low prices and reduced use of inputs.

However, US rice exports are projected at a record 109 million cwt. The report also contains details of price trends and country-by-country production and consumption trends.

Looks like Americna rice will be counted on to fill the void, or we could just let people starve and stop subsidizing our farmers, why spend more to charge less?


Commissioner Fischler put forward the case for a radical reform of the EU rice regime at the March 19th 2003 EU Agricultural Council meeting, proposing a massive 50% reduction in the intervention price ( coupled as always to an increase in direct aid payments)Radical rice-sector reform now appears imminent.
Outcome of the Agricultural Council Meeting of March 2003

Comment
With the EU looking for an internal price of around ?150 per tonne, Guyanese rice exporters are likely to face price reductions of over 25% in the next year. If EU rice market prices fall to the level where special support measures are necessary, income losses to Guyanese and Surinam rice exports could exceed 40%. Prospects do not look good for continued ACP rice exports to the EU market.

Unfair EU trade pratices bring economic despair to the rice world, the US takes a beating on it's bumper crop that will feed the world, giving US farmers more money, so we can charge the poor and starving less........

 

[Alistar7]

Against this background Guyana's and Surinam's rice farmers may need to look to joining Southern African beef farmers in calling for the introduction of 'compensatory trade measures' to compensate traditional ACP suppliers for the income depressing effects of CAP reform. Within this concept it is argued that just as EU farmers are compensated for price reductions by increased levels of direct aid payments, so traditional ACP suppliers of these products should be compensated for price reductions through an enhancement of the trade preferences extended to them (so called 'compensatory trade measures'). In the rice sector this could involve:

the elimination of the remaining 35% special duty on direct exports to the EU;

the lifting of all quantitative restrictions;

a review of administrative arrangements to facilitate exports and reduce transaction costs.

That 35% tariff sounds like Haiti's old one, why hasn't the IMF forced them to open up to free trade?

 

[Alistar7]

More evidence EU subsidy policy has wrecked the third world rice producers

From the box, it is clear that the quota allocation method chosen favours traditional suppliers and effectively prevents new market entrants from gaining access to the EU milled rice market. ( definitely sounds like fair free trade)

Another feature of the market access system which has negative effects on third country system is the inward processing scheme (IPR). In the 1998/99 marketing year about 120,000 MT of rice was imported into the EU under IPR arrangements. According to this system, products are imported duty-free, undergo some processing in the EU, after which the processed products are exported to third countries without an export subsidy.

The most common IPR activity consists of importing brown rice, milling it in the EU, and export the milled rice without export subsidy. Of the 120,000 MT of rice imported under IPR in 1998/99, 80,000 MT was brown rice, the remainder being milled rice (almost 20,000 MT), paddy rice (about 10,000 MT), and broken rice (about 9,000 MT). Italy makes most use of this system, followed by Spain, Belgium, U.K., Germany and the Netherlands. The U.S. is the main supplier of rice imported into the EU for IPR purposes. In 1998/99, all paddy rice and nearly two thirds of brown rice imports under IPR originated in the U.S.

The IPR system effectively builds an additional distortion onto an already heavily skewed system. Furthermore, given that the exporters involved also receive export subsidy payments on rice exports, an argument can be ventured that the IPR system allows them to cross-subsidise the export of EU rice at the expense of other suppliers of milled rice on third country markets.


and look at that, the EU buys the rice the US pays to keep cheap, and then fvcks over the 3rd world on it 3rd party, classic...

Funny no mention of this by the BBC when discussing rice trading and subsidies.



They must feel as special as the people of Iraq....

 

[Alistar7]

Portugal?s rice sector is currently going through a difficult period, which many claim has been caused by the EU trade concessions under the 1995 GATT Accords, in particular the special preferential lower duty imports.

EU special treatment leading to yet another country's financial hardship in the rice market......

I totally understand why the BBC didn't mention any of this.......

 

[Alistar7]

ok I am done for now, you can keep your precious BBC, you seem to be very satisfied with a biased narrow interpretation of reality, they are perfect for you. Or maybe you are this way because of them.....


Or is it the weather there?

 

[CaptnKirk]

and back to SUGAR as a topic

 

[sandorski]

The IMF's restructuring of 3rd World Nations has repeatedly lead to similar situations as those in Haiti. That being forcing the nation into "Free Trade" causing an inflow of US and EU subsidized agricultural products that destroys the Domestic Agriculture industry. In this respect, the IMF policy has been a sick joke.